Georgia University Orderes Student to Alter Religious Views

[Obamessiah]

.... A misplaced (") conveyed the wrong question and opened up Pandora's Box, ie WT's chance to babble again.

That you did; knock it off. The real issue here is the rights of this individual to hold and promote her own beliefs, and protection of the public's right to expect adherence to a code of conduct from certain professions. Her individual beliefs don't need defending here, they are immaterial to the point at hand.

I don't want to hear the story about how he came home early and caught an atheist sneaking out of the house again.

[Col. Klink]

.... A misplaced (") conveyed the wrong question and opened up Pandora's Box, ie WT's chance to babble again.

That you did; knock it off.

*Hangs head in shame* .... I'll wait then for another thread to show how woefully feeble his Hugo Black reference was.


Back on topic here .... Has there been any light shed on to the belief systems of the people trying to uphold the adherence to their code of conduct. I think some are assuming they are atheistic, when that might not be the case at all.

[The White Tiger]

Except the majority of society expect that their commonly held religious beliefs should not be marginalized by a minority who have convinced themselves they are right - the next logical (goose) step for them is to ban those who hold religious beliefs contrary to their own from needlessly applying to a higher calling...

Which requires candidates free from religious entanglements in order to prescribe treatments for the problems their own mismasche of godless philosophies created in the first place.

In one regard, I do understand...I mean, since you guys created and exacerbate the underlying problems - some could make the case that you should have to fix the mess you make - unfortunately that results in what we have now: the blind leading the blind.

Besides - you guys don't have a code of conduct, it's why you want to hold Christians accountable to their code of conduct, but think it uproarily hilarious to reserve the ability to endulge any passion under the sun - for yourselves - and think there is never any consequences. You've told me repeatedly that not having a code of conduct governing you makes you free - NOT having rules means you don't have to live your lives according to someone elses concept of right and wrong...?

Suddenly - for some - a code of conduct is necessarry...(these would be real dolts, ALL of society gets to do anything they want, yet SOME professions HAVE to limit themselves in order to be taken seriously and trusted...why would anyone do that?)...

But (and this should be fun) for the sake of argument let me play along - since SOME professions DO require a code of conduct under/by which they should operate - whose code of conduct would you propose?

[dbucfan]

Skirts? Really? LMAO. I think you lost the point and are now throwing flowers all over the place to cover the funeral of the abandoned position.

Lost the point? Not really .... A misplaced (") conveyed the wrong question and opened up Pandora's Box, ie WT's chance to babble again. My statement should have read and although I'm not sure how you can qualify secular humanism as a "fear based" religion. Although I don't agree with him, if there's one thing I've learned here is to not question WT's belief that the ism's are religions. It only gives him the chance to drone on and on about them being no different than HIS religion. My question was around the "fear based" angle of secular humanism, which he didn't really address.

And I'm still trying to figure out how predictable can be construed as an insult or attack .... Maybe I'm just not sensitive enough.

Well - learning the 'isms' is a start I would expect....   

[Col. Klink]

Skirts? Really? LMAO. I think you lost the point and are now throwing flowers all over the place to cover the funeral of the abandoned position.

Lost the point? Not really .... A misplaced (") conveyed the wrong question and opened up Pandora's Box, ie WT's chance to babble again. My statement should have read and although I'm not sure how you can qualify secular humanism as a "fear based" religion. Although I don't agree with him, if there's one thing I've learned here is to not question WT's belief that the ism's are religions. It only gives him the chance to drone on and on about them being no different than HIS religion. My question was around the "fear based" angle of secular humanism, which he didn't really address.

And I'm still trying to figure out how predictable can be construed as an insult or attack .... Maybe I'm just not sensitive enough.

Well - learning the 'isms' is a start I would expect....

I'm only about halfway through the 'asm's .... but I'll get there. 

[The White Tiger]

...stop when you get to the miasm's...

The U.S. Supreme Court has defined Secular Human-ism as a religion. Well intended fascists and communists turned it into a fear-based religion when they used it's tenets to sacrifice 200 million people to create a better society - without religion...

...but I guess, you have to break a few eggs...right?

[Col. Klink]

...stop when you get to the miasm's...

The U.S. Supreme Court has defined Secular Human-ism as a religion. Well intended fascists and communists turned it into a fear-based religion when they used it's tenets to sacrifice 200 million people to create a better society - without religion...

...but I guess, you have to break a few eggs...right?

Have you been in a coma??

[The White Tiger]

...stop when you get to the miasm's...

The U.S. Supreme Court has defined Secular Human-ism as a religion. Well intended fascists and communists turned it into a fear-based religion when they used it's tenets to sacrifice 200 million people to create a better society - without religion...

...but I guess, you have to break a few eggs...right?

Have you been in a coma??

May have been doing some field work for some political interests...think of it as a self-imposed exile...until acceptable results were attained.

...nice to have been missed though!